221–230 of 360 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't combine it with GPL'd programs.
Not even locally? And even then that's mostly because the GPL won't let you. You can combine it with MIT license programs, right?
So much for freedom to distribute, I guess.
> And even then that's mostly because the GPL won't let you. You can combine it with MIT license programs, right?
How about this instead? I can't release a free derivative work of it.
Isn't Akka an important component in various Scala projects like Apache Spark? What are they supposed to do?
Other libraries depending on Akka shouldn't have to change, as they are merely published as "libraries", not deployed to "production". Libraries generally never have "annual revenues more than US $25m", so it should be free for them to use the code as well. Realistically though, they force you to contact them to get a "Additional Use Grant" in case you want to use Akka for other open source projects: > I use Akka for…
I’ve never quite understood the amount of rancor that changes like this elicit here. It seems like people come out of the woodworks acting like they have been personally affronted by this, or that this is somehow directly affecting their lives. Is everybody here (planning on?) using this software to build companies with more than $25 million in revenue… and they can’t use something else with a more permissible licens…
I think people don’t take the license of projects they use seriously. The license allows such relicensing. Use a copyleft-licensed project with outside contributors if you want the project to stay free.
Rather look at how many organizations are paying for contributions. If it's all resting on a single back there's increased danger.
Still, the only way to guarantee continued development is paying for it (or doing it yourself).
I have a side project in data management that I have worked on for years ( https://www.Didgets.com ) and it is finally reached the point where it is an MVP with real value. I have considered adopting an open source license for it, but there are so many to choose from (I read somewhere that there are over 100 accepted kinds of OSS licenses). Stories like this one make me nervous about choosing the wrong one. Once you…
AGPLv3 or GPLv3 is a good choice to ensure that all changes stay out in the open. Then the competition becomes who can change the code faster and reach more customers.
That is not very reassuring advice for a small developer who has limited resources. By opening your source code, you have just given up any head start you might have over the competition. They now have access to every line of code you spent hours agonizing over to get it right. Now they can out market you and leverage their vast resources to steal away any of your potential customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even locally? And even then that's mostly because the GPL won't let you. You can combine it with MIT license programs, right?
> Not even locally? So much for freedom to distribute, I guess. > And even then that's mostly because the GPL won't let you. You can combine it with MIT license programs, right? How about this instead? I can't release a free derivative work of it.